Russia keeps Crimea, Ukraine wins NATO
If Ukraine is to relinquish territorial claim over Crimea as Russia's Black Sea prize, then NATO membership should be Ukraine’s win.
Executive Takeaways:
The Opportunity: Ukraine has a chance to retain its territory and join NATO, but past events continue to shape the present.
The Risk of continued instability in Europe: Russia aims to maintain instability in Ukraine and prevent its NATO membership, potentially influencing other former Soviet states.
The Importance of NATO Membership: If Ukraine officially relinquishes the critical port peninsula of Crimea, along with the natural-gas rich regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, it needs to join NATO. Without NATO membership, and the fear of the U.S.’s military might at the ready, Russia will continue destabilizing Ukraine and installing Russian-aligned politicians.
The spirit of Pope Francis permeated his funeral, and his legacy of human-centric communication may actually facilitate negotiations for Ukrainian independence. On April 26th, 2025, it seems that a profound meeting took place between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the Vatican City, surrounded by the spirit of Pope Francis and those mourning his passing.
During negotiations with Russia, Ukraine is being asked to cede substantial territory, including Lugansk, Donetsk, and the Crimean peninsula. The Crimean peninsula houses the valuable Black Sea port of Sevastopol. If President Zelenskyy officially agrees to relinquish Crimea, NATO should be included in the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
President Zelenskyy, who has led the fight to preserve the current territory, is not the one who lost Crimea, Donetsk, or Lugansk. The former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, ceded the crucial seaport and eastern regions filled with natural gas to Russian forces. It’s plausible that Mr. Yanukovych formally agreed to allow Russia to take Crimea in exchange for political protection through the use of Russian military force in 2014. Alternatively, it’s more likely Mr. Yanukovych tacitly agreed to a passive resistance as part of the deal at the Kremlin. As the Latin phrase goes, “qui tacet consentire videtur.” Silence is consent.
On February 20th, 2014, under the cover of night, the first Russian occupation of Crimea began. Two days later, President Yanukovych was ousted from office by a parliamentary vote and abruptly fled Kiev to Kharkiv amidst intense protests at Maidan. Mr. Yanukovych made a brief appearance in Crimea before mysteriously arriving in Moscow around February 22nd, 2014.
Despite being forced from office due to corruption scandals and the aftermath of the Orange Revolution, Mr. Yanukovych signed a letter requesting military assistance from Russia to stabilize the country from the “chaos and anarchy” allegedly caused by the “West.” These events exposed the extent to which the Russian government had underlying control over Ukrainian politics and natural resources.
Now in 2025, the political dynamics have changed dramatically, presenting an opportunity for Ukraine to retain its currently held territory and to join NATO. However, it is essential to set aside the past, influenced by the different balances of power at the time, for a better future. Perhaps, the American mentality that to move forward, move on hits too soon for Ukrainians, and definitely a mentality too western for the Russian government. Nevertheless, the memories of the past, particularly in the east, linger as an active part of the present.
For anyone who has listened to Vladimir Putin’s interviews or monologues at the Duma from his party members, they often speak to the significance of Nikita Khrushchev’s 1954 decision to place Crimea under the Soviet satellite state of Ukraine. Russian officials also like to give history lessons to the international community, referencing the 1990 agreement with Mikhail Gorbachev against “NATO expansion”. These historical events serve as a reminder of the enduring impact of past actions and decisions.
The pivotal question is whether President Putin bartered for Crimea, to readdress a past Russian strategic misstep, in exchange for Russian special forces to suppress the Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity. Equally important, is whether Viktor Yanukovych, either in writing or verbally, agreed to allow the Russian military, along with the Chechen Republic’s special police forces, to seize Crimea without significant resistance or defenses.
Despite his frequent bickering with Russia over gas prices and EU membership, Viktor Yanukovych ultimately aligned himself with Russia. In 2014, Mr. Yanukovych brokered a deal with Russia to save his presidency, which ultimately resulted in not only his definitive removal from office but Ukraine losing nearly one-third of its territory, people, and natural resources.
Numerous legal experts have argued that Russia’s actions under Mr. Yanukovych’s request for Russian military aid was illegal and against international law. Essentially, the legal argument is that Viktor Yanukovych’s status as an ousted president tainted by corruption, no longer officially represented Ukrainian interests at the time. Even though Mr. Yanukovych now publicly regrets requesting Russian military assistance, it’s too late to undo the consequences.
Today, this problem plagues Mr. Zelenskyy’s position in ceasefire negotiations as ceding Crimea sets a potentially perilous precedent. The crux of the matter currently derailing Ukraine’s future lies in territorial disputes, which hinders nations from joining NATO due to stipulations in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Russian government understands the influence of Article 10 on membership and obstructs former Soviet-era satellite states from progressing toward a EU and NATO future.
Skeptics argue that the terms of the agreement are irrelevant; Russia will never relinquish control over Ukraine. The Russian government will persist in using military and intelligence resources to maintain instability in Ukraine to prevent NATO membership, just as Russia did with the Georgian Republic. This fear influences the decisions of other nations in the Caucasus region and Central Asia.
If President Zelenskyy officially relinquishes Crimea, then the Ukrainian people and Europe need to witness a resounding and reassuring victory. This victory should manifest in NATO membership, supported by the United States and the military might it entails.
Without this triumph, there’s no imminent danger halting the Russian Federation’s destabilization efforts in Ukraine. Without the threat of military repercussions from the United States and other NATO Allies, the Russian military will persist in its subversive actions. Similarly, the Ukrainian military will continue fighting until the very end.
If fear is a key component of power and respect is a reflection, then what safeguards prevent Russia from destabilizing Ukraine without the support of NATO’s combat capabilities? Regardless of the territories Russia retains in the ceasefire deal, Russia will persist in undermining the Ukrainian government to meet long-term objectives. Chiefly, the Russian government aims to install Russian-aligned Ukrainian politicians in the government to maintain influence over Ukraine’s decisions regarding natural resources, and political and military positions.
To prevent this, if Ukraine is expected to cede Crimea, as well as Lugansk and Donetsk, Ukraine needs to secure a NATO membership.
~E